Sounds similar to Valve forcing Counter-Strike players to install Steam back then.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
GI: [Anno 1800 leaving Steam] might not bode well for the...strength of Steam's marketplace, it most likely is good for everyone else (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter benzopil
- Start date
Sounds similar to Valve forcing Counter-Strike players to install Steam back then.
Final reminder
Official Staff Communication
A final reminder: If you want to allege that Game Informer was paid by Epic to write this article you must have actual proof. Alternatively, there is plenty of ground to criticize the article on its substance. If you cannot stay on topic you will be actioned and the thread may be closed.
Microsoft and especially Sony did the same thing since forever. It seems it doesn't really hurt your reputation among gamers.
Anyway, Steam needed competition and to pay for exclusives is the only option to get Users on a new game storefront.
Why would anyone change to a new store when all games are on Steam anyway. Most people don't care about all the "community functions" of Steam, they just want to easy download games. A new Storefront, no matter how good, has otherwise no chance against Steam.
Good post!
On the developer side they provide lots of stuff too:
- they sell games almost worldwide including China
- they offer loads of different options for customers to buy your games including cards in stores where they tank the extra costs
- they offer their engine for free (same as epic)
- they offer their multiplayer integration for free, even if you don't use their engine
- they enable you to sell games on Windows, Macs and Linux (without even the need to port them to the last one)
- should you be successful enough, they change the split to 80/20 (which could use a better solution for smaller devs)
- they allow you to generate codes to sell on whatever storefront you like without taking any money for it. The code sold on your own page or gmg for example will still activate on steam. You get everything, valve gets nothing
- they allow an API that enables you to know what your game has sold, even if your publisher decides to fuck you over like it happened in the past (or if the guy providing these number gets hired by the competition)
- they provide a steam-market to let you sell items from your game from customer to customer, where you are generating extra revenue whenever someone sells an item.
- should you be successful, they will advertise your game for free on the store front page
- they advertise your game during sales
Yes, steam could use an update on the curation and storefront side but these are in the works. Otherwise, they offer you a huge amount of opportunities and services to earn their 30 percent share - especially compared to other services on the net.
We already know what Valve and Epic think about it. Valve still believes in providing best possible tools for developers and best possible experience for customers. Epic still believes that they had to do exclusives and that developers should be in first place no matter what.
That is why i want somebody who knows how things work but it is not tied to either company to be interviewed. Issue is that many developers won't comment on it because they can lose so much by speaking against either of those. I took Durante for example because he clearly doesn't have issue publicly speaking about issues that this "war" presents.
In that case, I think it'd be logical for him to write an Op-Ed instead -- perhaps for PC Gamer, who he's written for in the past. It allows him to have a venue to plead his case while removing the awkwardness of a reporter trying to explain why he's asking a random game modder/fixer about digital game stores. Again, I know he is well informed, but explaining why you chose him specifically would be... awkward.
For reference, I'm a former editor of a local newspaper. That's why I see it from that point of view as well.
Why would there need to be any 'change' im the first place? This isn't console platform war for fuck sake and the fact that people keep framing it as one shows how ignorant you are on the reality of PC market. You don't even realize that GoG exist and compete with Steam by offering DRM free games or how Origin only offers EA games there. Epic could do the LATTER and it shows how moneyhatting is an absolutely low effort attempt at inviting consumer.
Stop with this platform war framing nonsense if the only perspective you offer is only as a console gamer.
Durante is co-founder of PH3 Games so he is not some random modder any more :D Also he ported games to PC like The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel
How about better prices? If they can't get publishers to agree to directly lower prices, how about a credit scheme? As it currently stands, why would customers hang around once the exclusives have dried up?
I get how the EGS can be good for devs, the larger share of profits is great and more stores should do that (you know, those console stores, that also take like 30% yet no journalist EVER calls out) but I don't see hot it's good for consumers. And really, at the end of the day as a consumer, I care about that. I want the best value which is what competition is supposed to deliver to me. They are supposed to compete to give me the best value so I will pick them.
Value isn't always cost, it can be things like Steams features or ease of access or whatever, but the EGS buying games from Steam doesn't create competition, it just creates a game that is less available than it would be if it was still on Steam.
Value isn't always cost, it can be things like Steams features or ease of access or whatever, but the EGS buying games from Steam doesn't create competition, it just creates a game that is less available than it would be if it was still on Steam.
I found out the former as I was Googling who he'd written for, haha. I was unaware! Congrats to him!
And, yeah, it makes such an interview more applicable -- although I still think it's better to couch an EGS/Steam question into a larger interview about his current projects rather than conduct one solely about this one topic. Just my 2c though.
3rd party exclusivity has been a common thing in the console industry basically from it's first days. Is something widely accepted by users, journalists and is mostly seem either inoffensive or even beneficial.
So this is not gonna change, even accounting how the PC market has worked for years and how the platform embodies freedom of choice.
Someone wake me up when a video games website ever mentions that Valve's 30% is only a piece of the story, and that a great portion of sales come off-site with no cut going to Valve. They also handle all payment processing, including Steam Gift Cards. Be sure to @ me.
That would require them to actually do research before writing things. It is easier to just repeat Epic words.
When people accuse journalists for using their jobs are stepping stones to get into game companies, articles like this only fuel that level of thought.
Like, I'm not even saying the article was "Paid by Epic Games" but you have to be avoiding a lot of reports about the context of Epic's own absurd statements on things and how they come seemingly from another universe, how they moneyhat products to their services, to have the nerve to neutrally argue that this is "merely" competition.
Buying exclusivity for a crowdfunded game isn't friendly competition, to give one meager example in this mess. That's a slimy buyout. How is that overlooked by these people?
Good for everybody else? Come on, get your neoliberal lens off your eyes for just 30 seconds, here..one platform is trying to buy its way into relevancy by paying for noteworthy games and hoping a decent service follows suit.
Like, I'm not even saying the article was "Paid by Epic Games" but you have to be avoiding a lot of reports about the context of Epic's own absurd statements on things and how they come seemingly from another universe, how they moneyhat products to their services, to have the nerve to neutrally argue that this is "merely" competition.
Buying exclusivity for a crowdfunded game isn't friendly competition, to give one meager example in this mess. That's a slimy buyout. How is that overlooked by these people?
Good for everybody else? Come on, get your neoliberal lens off your eyes for just 30 seconds, here..one platform is trying to buy its way into relevancy by paying for noteworthy games and hoping a decent service follows suit.
Regarding the discussion a few posts up, the only reason to do an interview with me rather than any other random (and more qualified, e.g. already having several self-published games) developer is to get a very strongly PC-enthusiast focused perspective.
I think any media interested in such a perspective would have plenty of options to get it, but so far I haven't seen much interest in that.
You know, back when it was Microsoft doing it against Sony.
But perhaps someone can explain to me how that was totally different.
I think any media interested in such a perspective would have plenty of options to get it, but so far I haven't seen much interest in that.
The thing is, basically everyone already agreed that moneyhatting (temporary) third party exclusives is bad.
You know, back when it was Microsoft doing it against Sony.
But perhaps someone can explain to me how that was totally different.
"Epic is doing X for the first year" seems to be a recurring trend. I'm really curious how the situation will change after that. Luckily I'm getting quite patient in my old age :P
My whole issue with these articles or opinion pieces is that they are just repeating what Epic said. There is 0 research done. I am an architect who has nothing to do with journalism or gaming industry. And yet i know more about what it takes to run store on Steam level worldwide than any of those journalists. Why? Because i actually care about developers and i follow them on social media, listen GDC talks, read their posts on forums or their articles... If they just went and listened Valve talk from GDC they would know why for example 12% cut that Epic pushes is BS for worldwide store.
Why should we care about your opinion or any other devs ?
We already have all the informations Epic sent via press release to the gaming writers to have a good piece of opinion. :"")
But 3rd party moneyhatting of nearly finished games is new. The "console Method" was to finance a 3rd party game either from the beginning or in the middle. Moneyhatting it weeks before a release and taking it off previously announced stores is completely new.
The only person close to media I've seen cover it from a consumer perspective is YongYea, and he's... not exactly a shining star of journalism, IMO. Jim Sterling touched on it too, but I still feel he missed the mark in a few ways.
It all makes me anxious to get my degree so I can start pitching PC-centric stories to places like Waypoint, TBH.
Kotaku is looking for freelancers and their ideas actually. You can try there.
User warned: antagonizing another member
The fuck is this? Itch io barely breaks even every month. Do they handle game updates and diwnloads for 250 million customers? Do they offer hosting services for millions of mods? Do they host chat and voice services for all their games?
Have they worked on dx11 wrappers for games to run on linux? Have they implented super low latency network paths to improve multiplayer gaming?
Have they implemented controller support for almost every controller under the sun. Including the ability to remap functionality to extreme levels?
Or do all of the other positive things steam has done for pc gaming?
I recall a time when developers and publishers, including Epic were fleeing pc gaming. Calling it unworthy of their time, calling us all pirates, and embracing consoles as greener pastures, fuck everything pc gamers and the open platform that is pc gaming had done for them in the past. They got theirs so fuck off pc gamers.
If it wasnt for steam pc gaming probably would have never recovered.
Im convinced a lot of this stupid hot takes are coming from era console gamers on era trolling.
Last edited:
Any idea what's the temperature of PC gamers at large in regard to EGS in the comment section of these articles. I can't think the competition fallacy hasn't been brought up, even if the author hasn't done any basic research before hand.
What I'm trying to say is any of these EGS puff pieces getting any traction in the wider PC gaming community.
What I'm trying to say is any of these EGS puff pieces getting any traction in the wider PC gaming community.
User Banned (3 Days): Ignoring numerous staff posts. Posting unfounded accusations.
It's good for everyone else that Epic's lining pockets to "secure" games, and Valve should be doing this too?
Gaming journalism is dead. I didn't realize it was easy to buy a journalist's opinion, but Epic's proving it. Buying literally anything and everything so we can have an Epic controlled walled PC garden.
Take the power away from consumers.
Gaming journalism is dead. I didn't realize it was easy to buy a journalist's opinion, but Epic's proving it. Buying literally anything and everything so we can have an Epic controlled walled PC garden.
Take the power away from consumers.
What's the meaning of adding an "our take" to an article like that, if you're not going to put in any effort into it? If this is good for me, as they say, I really want to know how and why, more a generic and not explained "a little competition is always good".
A fragmented friend list is a very small part of the issues with being forced to use the client if you still want the game being made exclusive. g
A fragmented friend list is a very small part of the issues with being forced to use the client if you still want the game being made exclusive. g
I actually thought there was going to be more past the link but it really is just one paragraph with nothing to support that claim.
That's like an article equivalent of a shitpost.
That's like an article equivalent of a shitpost.
Please stop this accusation. It's derailing the thread and not based on any facts (other than Epic having sponsored separate articles for publications in the past, which is no more suspect than having ads on the site.) Mods have already threatened to shut the thread down due to these kinds of derails. I'd like to prevent that so that productive conversation can continue.
A lot of the comments echo views expressed here, from what I've seen. They're either ignored, unseen, or handwaved away. That being said, it's not like I've read every comment on every article.
This is yet another pro-Epic article, of the many that have been written in these last few weeks, that desperately wants to convince gamers about the benefits of Epic's policies. This article, like all others that have been written on the same subject and, weirdly enough, follow the exact same line, fails in the same way as all the rest:
The author has no argument.
This is not an exaggeration. The opinion expressed in the article, just like every other pro-Epic article before, is devoid of a single argument on why supporting Epic's moneyhats is good for customers. Every such article regurgitates the same claims: Valve is slacking (which is false), competition is needed (extremely vague and never explained), the benefits will some day and somehow reach customers (extremely vague and trickle-down horseshit). There is no argument here. Nothing to point to and say "this is why you should support this". Just platitudes, cliches and the misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint. I worked as a games journalist for many years and this sort of poor reporting is in my opinion a telling example of why many people don't respect the profession.
The author has no argument.
This is not an exaggeration. The opinion expressed in the article, just like every other pro-Epic article before, is devoid of a single argument on why supporting Epic's moneyhats is good for customers. Every such article regurgitates the same claims: Valve is slacking (which is false), competition is needed (extremely vague and never explained), the benefits will some day and somehow reach customers (extremely vague and trickle-down horseshit). There is no argument here. Nothing to point to and say "this is why you should support this". Just platitudes, cliches and the misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint. I worked as a games journalist for many years and this sort of poor reporting is in my opinion a telling example of why many people don't respect the profession.
It would be dumb to interview a pc focused game developer on this topic?
Generally speaking, from what I've seen, it's about 70/30, with the majority Ive come across sharing PCERA's view on things, with the other 30% being a mix of various neutral to pro comments.
I've long been critical of the enthusiast video game press, mostly for regurgitating pr and adding nearly nothing to any conversation. I generally don't read anything in the sphere because of it. But at least I thought they were generally passionate about what they were doing, why else would they want to be in it.
But with this epic stuff it's a lot of people who clearly don't care about understanding anything they're writing about, even in "PC centric" sites.
It's sad to me that they're doing a disservice to their readers at the end of the day.
But with this epic stuff it's a lot of people who clearly don't care about understanding anything they're writing about, even in "PC centric" sites.
It's sad to me that they're doing a disservice to their readers at the end of the day.
Last edited:
Basically this. How is anything a competition if you can buy it in one place only?
Why don't sell it in all storefronts and let the people choose? Let Epic and Valve compete in platform services, not exclusives. That's the real competition.
Anyone who says they're comfortable with a pc games market dominated by Epic and Tencent is lying to themselves. You can be sure that's the goal too. Valve doesn't pay for exclusives, GOG has no DRM, and itch.io barely cares about profit at all. What the hell does epic want other than dominant market share?
And how do we think they'll behave if they get it?
And how do we think they'll behave if they get it?
If anything, it'll get worse. The very idea that "Epic being anti consumer is a necessary evil because someday they might turn good and that'll be handful if Valve suddenly turns evil" is stupid indeed.
I don't know. I'm sure there are a lot of corporate rimjobbers that genuinely feel comfortable with what is going on.
And no Resellers like GMG, Voidu or Fanatical for Epic games means that preordering games just got 10-20% more expensive.
Because customers are happy with Steam, and so if given the choice they'll buy it on their preferred storefront. And this is bad because...
because...
This is really nice. It makes the 30% cut seem more worth it and understandable.
i ussualy get then when theyre cheap, i'm more concerned on the games i want comming to pc, not the store they're in
It is weird, because it's not hard to actually come up with an argument
They could say a viable competitor to Steam could potentially end up being a positive for consumers if it over time instigates a features and price arms race, however they never do this and generally gloss over the downsides of money hatting
If money hatting stops and Epic start funding their own titles, and also fight Steam for the best features and prices, then it would be a positive for the PC gaming scene, and hopefully Steam would react in a way that benefits the consumer to try and prevent people going over to Epic
When you could make a solid argument, but decide to make a bad argument, it just makes your case look even weaker
Every games website dunks on Steam and praises Epic without any real context or proper reasoning
Probly just a coincidence.
Toss in that Valve pays the fees required for certain payment methods, including 10%-15% of the face value of Steam cash cards. IIRC, the customer has to pay the fees on certain payment methods on EGS.
Then I have bad news for you again, because Epic does not like sales with deep discounts.
Do we have any idea of how much EPIC has made by selling third party games on the store front and how many copies?
Because for some reason; I am be inclined to believe that model is not ideally sustainable for features addition (like Steam) to the store front if the store front is only run by the percentage cut taken from third party title sales while still being profitable for company.
Similarly, there is *now* very less possibility that any other store front can come up compete with EGS in this scenario and fail to launch at all (unless they are just burning investment and eventually fizzle out).
Because for some reason; I am be inclined to believe that model is not ideally sustainable for features addition (like Steam) to the store front if the store front is only run by the percentage cut taken from third party title sales while still being profitable for company.
Similarly, there is *now* very less possibility that any other store front can come up compete with EGS in this scenario and fail to launch at all (unless they are just burning investment and eventually fizzle out).
I can off-hand think of like 30 indy devs who would be a better interview, for the main reason that they want to be interviewed and Durante does not